The Real Weapon Of Mass Destruction: ‘Climate Change’ Or Barack Obama?
May 14, 2014 by John Myers
Last week, the White House had a publicity blitz that reminded me of a preview of a 1960s horror movie. This is not the exact wording of it, but it is the gist:
“The Climate Blob,” more hideous than zombies, more destructive than an alien invasion and dealing out death like a killer asteroid. Produced by Barack H. Obama, “The Climate Blob” stars John Kerry as Agent Orange and Nancy Pelosi as The Blob.
What happened instead was the world was told of an imminent threat in a newly released study by 300 scientists. Working for the Obama Administration on a project called the National Climate Assessment, the scientists warned immediate action has to be taken by governments acting in concert (sounds like global government) to prevent a global catastrophe. Here’s a propaganda film the White House released:
“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” the 840-page report concluded.
The report stated that corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are “outside of recent experience.” Left out was whether dogs and cats are living together in California, but you get the drift; without the help of Obama and other Democrats, planet Earth faces an environmental Armageddon.
The National Climate Assessment supports the warning given by Kerry in February in Jakarta, Indonesia, where our Secretary of State told members of that government (perhaps in some ways already all members of the same global government): “It’s not an exaggeration to say that your entire way of life here is at risk.”
Kerry went on to say: “In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” Yes, Kerry, a former foot soldier and still a liberal activist, is now a scientist and soothsayer.
I remember the Kerry who gave testimony on Capitol Hill in his infantry greens, not the one speaking to foreign governments for the Greens. Of course, that Kerry was around in the 1970s, the decade when scientists were certain that the world was headed for another ice age.
It seems that keeping up with what is going to happen to the planet is much like knowing if milk is good or bad for you. Both are variable. But climate change involves a lot more scientists, a lot more money and a far bigger agenda for those that embrace the idea of a global government — something that is becoming more of a reality when the citizens of the world recognize that only a single world order can truly establish the necessary laws to save humanity. Mao Zedong would have loved it.
More worrisome is our politicians — especially Obama — who embrace the necessity for “unilateral action,” which are code words for global government.
The White House website has its own version of the facts. Under “Energy, Climate Change and our Environment” a statement reads: “The President has taken unprecedented action to build the foundation for a clean energy economy, tackle the issue of climate change, and protect our environment.”
The website quotes the President: “We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future — an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”
The President is willing to put our money where his mouth is. In fact, as Kerry was warning of world climate change this past winter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture created what it calls “climate hubs.” Washington utopians who have planned it say it is for farmers, universities, industry and, of course, government, to better prepare for climate disasters like floods and droughts that have existed only recently.
And it’s not just idle talk. The White House’s plan is to use the National Climate Assessment report to strengthen Obama’s “Climate Action Plan,” which will be stocked with $1 billion in taxpayer money for something called the “climate resiliency fund.”
Such names are pure Orwellian doublespeak, and that suits Obama because of his goal to tax and eventually control the fossil fuel industry in North America. He wants oversight of domestic oil exploration (which creates jobs), of the Keystone pipeline (which creates jobs), and of the expansion of America’s vast and clean natural gas reserves (which creates jobs). Meanwhile, he supports expensive and unproven Green technologies that leave the United States in greater debt and with a weakened economy and further government regulations.
Obama seems only to detest North American hydrocarbons — a proven and affordable energy that provides national security for the United States. He seems perfectly at ease with Saudi Arabian oil, which explains why he is always eager to make state visits that show his support for the Muslim kingdom that has massive annual oil production and the largest oil reserves in the world. If you didn’t know better, you might think that Obama is the Mecca candidate — an Islamist whose energy policies, economic programs and globalist views are at odds with a free America and the Constitution.
On June 25, Obama said: “[W]hile we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.”
What exactly is the President’s ambition and how does he intend to achieve it? Is it possible Obama is undermining the United States and our energy independence for sinister global ambition? If that is so, it makes Obama a far more dangerous weapon of mass destruction than changes in the weather.
Yours in good times and bad,